On Apr 28, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
uninitialized or
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 9:59 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
Reviewers: ,
Message:
If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
uninitialized or invalid in some way, whereas in fact, is_empty gets rid
of anything where left is greater than right. However, the LEFT
On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:37, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
uninitialized or invalid in some way, whereas in fact, is_empty gets rid
of
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:37 PM, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
If I understand it correctly, Han-Wen's original collision code in
beam.cc was treating intervals as if is_empty checked if they were
uninitialized or invalid in some way, whereas in fact, is_empty gets rid
of
